Nuclear Weapons and Indian Strategic Culture

The persistence of restraint, stability and minimalism in India's nuclear policy is best explained with reference to its strategic culture. This constitutes an intermediate structure between the power-acquisition imperative of the structure of the international system and domestic choices on how power is actually constituted. Disaggregation of strategic culture into three analytically distinct components - the level of assumptions and beliefs, the operational level and the structural frame - facilitates identification of the precise areas of continuity and change in a dynamic structure. The disjunctures observed, whether at one level or between levels, can then be subjected to social action in the pursuit of peace and stability. An examination of Indian strategic culture with respect to nuclear weapons on the basis of official and non-official preference structures reveals (a) high levels of continuity in the form of restrained responses to external and domestic pressures for change, and in a positive disposition toward arms control; and (b) a significant shift from high to low tolerance of ambiguity resulting from the steady growth of an operational, as opposed to a political, conception of nuclear weapons. The last creates space for nuclear instability. The anomaly can be corrected by exposing the deficiencies in the operational conception of deterrence, thereby reinforcing strategic stability.

[1]  Eliot A. Cohen,et al.  The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate , 1995 .

[2]  P. Feaver Optimists, Pessimists, and Theories of Nuclear Proliferation Management: Debate , 1995 .

[3]  Elizabeth Kier,et al.  Culture and Military Doctrine: France between the Wars , 1995 .

[4]  J. D. Morrow Social Choice and System Structure in World Politics , 1988, World Politics.

[5]  George Perkovich,et al.  India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation , 1999 .

[6]  Badredine Arfi,et al.  Constructivism in International Relations Theory , 2010 .

[7]  K. Booth Strategy and ethnocentrism , 1979 .

[8]  Gregory F. Giles,et al.  Indian and Pakistani views on nuclear deterrence , 1996 .

[9]  M. Hatch Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives , 1997 .

[10]  F. Fukuyama,et al.  The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics , 1997 .

[11]  R. Menon A Nuclear Strategy for India , 2000 .

[12]  B. Chellaney After the tests: India's options , 1998 .

[13]  Kenneth N. Waltz,et al.  Theory of International Politics , 1979 .

[14]  A. Moravcsik,et al.  Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics , 1997, International Organization.

[15]  Pertti Alasuutari Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies , 1995 .

[16]  umit Ganguly,et al.  India's Pathway to Pokhran II: The Prospects and Sources of New Delhi's Nuclear Weapons Program , 1999, International Security.

[17]  Raj Chengappa,et al.  Weapons of Peace: The Secret Story of India's Quest to Be a Nuclear Power , 2000 .

[18]  Itty Abraham The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb: Science, Secrecy and the Postcolonial State , 1998 .

[19]  E. Kapstein Is realism dead? The domestic sources of international politics , 1995, International Organization.

[20]  Richard W. Wilson The Many Voices of Political Culture: Assessing Different Approaches , 2000, World Politics.

[21]  A. Johnston Thinking about Strategic Culture , 1995 .

[22]  D. Graham Nuclear strategy. , 1986, Science.

[23]  A. Johnston Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History , 1995 .

[24]  M. Desch Culture Clash: Assessing the Importance of Ideas in Security Studies , 1998, International Security.

[25]  M. Krepon A handbook of confidence-building measures for regional security , 1998 .

[26]  K. M. Bhimaya Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia: Civil-Military Relations and Decision-Making , 1994 .